View
213
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
ED 348 399 TN 018 806
AUTHOR NcKeough, AnneTITLE Program Development Criteria for Curricula Designed
To Teach Central Conceptual Structures.PUB DATE Apr 92NOTE 18p.; Paper presented at the Annual Neeting of the
American Educational Researcn Association (SanFrancisco, CA, April 20-24, 1992).
PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150)
EDRS PRICE mrca/Pcol Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Age Differences; Child Development; Cognitive
Development; *Cognitive Structures; *ConceptFormation; *Criteria; *Curriculum Development;Elementary Secondary Education; Foreign Countries;Integrated Curriculum; InterdiSciplinary Approach;*Piagetian Theory; *Program Development; StudentEvaluation; Teaching Methods
ABSTRACT
Instructional implications of cognitive developmenttheory are discussed, and it is proposed that the current theoreticalframework offers a view of development that, applied in instructionalcontexts, leads to a reconceptualization of the traditional notion ofdevelopmental curricula. Piaget's theory offered a framework for howchildren should be taught and for what should be taught. It suggestedto educators that learning across subject areas is interconnected andproceeds according to a developmental schedule. However, the promisethat instructional.sequences in the various disciplines could beintegrated has never been fulfilled. New approaches that teach thecomponents of the central Jonceptual structures and relations amongthem offer promise of coordinating instruction across subject areas.Current theory proposes to track conceptual understanding andinterdisciplinary units. The current approach also allows teacher tomake decisions regarding the timing of instruction on the basis ofstudents' conceptual understanding. Students apply a given structureindependently only when that structure is firmly in place. Thepresent approach represents a move away from the Piagetian notion ofa context-free, single, logical structure. A range of teachingapproaches can be accommodated, and students' performance is judgedin terms of their levels of understanding. One figure illustrates thecentral social structure, and there is a 14-item list of references.(SLD)
****************************************************W***************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made ** from the original document. *
***********************************************************************
UN. ORPARIVENT OF ESUCATIONMace c Educalumal Reeemch and auptommens
EDUCATTOPAL RESOURCES INVORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
1114e document atm been teproduced aswaved hem Me demon o meanurehen°neurone 4
fl - eivangea nave been made to anpeoremoroduetten quad,
Pawn cot 09onswat Mateclinthedocumem de net necesaanly represent &AcmeOERI POSthOn o PONCY
Curriculum Development 1
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
fikivE kEdo4N
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMAT/ON CENTER (ERIC),"
Program Development Criteria for Cturicula Designed to
Teach Central Conceptual Structures
Paper # et in Symposium: Educational Implications of Research on the
Development of Central Conceptual Structures
AERA. 1992.
Anne McKeoughDept. of Educational PsychologyThe University of Calgary
COPY AVA E
Curriculum Development 2
Program Development Criteria for Curricula Designed toTeach Central Conceptual Structures
In this paper I discuss the instnictional implications of cognitivedevelopmental theory and propose that the current theoreticalframework offers a view of development, which when applied ininstructional contexts, leads to a reconceptualization of the traditionalnotion of developmental curricula and, indeed, of curricula, in general.
When Piagers theory of child development was first introduced toNorth America, educators saw it as suggesting a new teachingmethodology and a new approach to curriculum design. Piagetdescribed the child as a "little scientist" who assembled increasinglycomplex knowledge structures largely through the internally-situatedprocesses of, for example, exploration. problem solving, and conflictresolution. This view was in marked contrast to the then popular
stimulus/response notions of the Behaviorists who held that learningwas accounted for by environmentally-situated processes such asmodeling and reinforcement. Instead of this zacher-directedinstruction, a child-centered approach was advocated by Piagetianproponents. Because children were secn as "knowledge constructors,"the preferred approach involved encouraging children to explore andinteract with rich.developmentally-appropriate environments. Forexample, in teaching science, the teachers' role was to provide alearning environment where children's existing knowledge structureswere challenged and they were encouraged to "discover" principles.
3
Curriculum Development 3
Questioning and problem solving activities focused children's natural
tendencies to explore and offered them opportunities to assimilate
information into existing cognitive stnictures as well as to construct
higher-order structures. In effect. Piaget's psychological theory was a
natural companion to Dewey's philosophy of education
Piaget's theory offt red a new framework not only for how children
should be taught. but additionally, for what should be taught and
when it should be presented. The theory suggested that the logical
structures underlying concepts such as conservation were very general
ones, which if fostered indirectly should generalize to other
structurally related tasks. The goal of the curricula designer, working
within a Piagetian framework, was to develop programs of instruction
built around these concepts. In keeping with Piaget's genetic
epistemology, these curricula were stage sensitive. In other words,
material bases on concrete operations was taught during the
elementary school years and that based on formal operation was taught
during junior and senior high school.
What ultimately was lacking from this approach, however, was a
methodology for getting formal operations in place. The theory held
that, although the logical structures were very difficult to teach, if
taught they were expected to produce wide generalization. Studies
actually found that a concept such as conservation could be taught
without undue difficulty, at least above the age of 5 years. However,
when it was taught, generalization was limited to other conservation
tasks, but never occurred when the tasks' only relation was that they
Curriculum Development 4
shared the same underlying logical structure. (See Halford, 1982 for a
review). As a consequence. the notion that the logical structures
impacted on performance in a general way was challenged and, in its
place a more consiTained application was hypothesized. In grade
schools, curriculum designed to foster the development of logical
structures was, for the most part. ted to the discipline of science
where the subject matter dealt directly with topics such an
conservation and where processes such as exploration and problem
solving were traditional methods of inquiry. Application of the
instruction principles in non-scientific subject areas, such as history
and English literature was largely lacking.'
For those who were interested in teaching the basic concepts and
skills with which schools have traditionally been concerned, the
theory that was being deVeloped by information processing
psychologists appeared to offer a much more promising alternative. By
breaking skills into subskills. and general theoretical concepts into
interrelated sets of subconcepts, it was possible to order material
within any domain in a logical fashion, and be quite specific both as to
what should be taught. and in what order. From the perspective of
developmental theory, the view of children's learning that was implied
was a good deal too passive, and fragmented into different disciplines
or topics. Still, it must be admitted that, as a vehicle for planning
and/or revising existing curricula, the new technology was impressive.
Individuals who adopted this approach, in general, held a view of
1-the effort of Biggs & Collis (1982), in the SOLO taxonomy was a notable exception.However, it did not make a major impact on teaching practice. at least in North
America.
Curriculum Development 5
learning that asserted that separate skills or concepts were learned
relatively independently of each other, and that methods of inquiry
and problem solving varied according to the discipline. Although
teacher education programs continued to include course in child
development by way of background knowledge, then, it is only in early
childhood education where the Piagetian perspective achieved a
dominant status.2 Given the high activity level of children in the
preschool years, and the fact that subject matter goals are not as yet
very prominent. it is not surprising that this was the case. Still, for
those who are attracted to Piaget's theory as an epistemological
system, the current state of affairs is somewhat disappointing.
As was discussed in the first paper, however, the notion of
organizing cognitive structures has not been totally abandoned. In
what follows I discuss some of the implications this new view may hold
for curriculum development, and teaching practice. My discussion is
in no way exhaustive. Rather, it outlines some possible suggestions for
how the approach might be utilized in an instnictional context, based
on the research I have been conducting on students' narratives.
What should be taught. Plagetian theory suggested to educators
that learning across subject areas is interconnected and proceeds
according to a developmental schedule. In other words, it held out
the promise that instructional sequences in the various disciplines
could be integrated. This promise was not fulfilled, however. The
alle teacher education program at Berkeley appears to be an exception. but it is anexception that proves the rule, sinze it is based on an attempt to operationalizePlagetian constructs differently in different subject matter domains.
Curriculum Development 6
current framework offers considerably more hope in this regard.
Specifically, by teaching the components of the central conceptual
structures, and the relations among them, we are in a good position to
coordinate instxuction across subject areas. Thus, we propose to
teach: a) conceptual understanding and b) interdisciplinary units.
(a) Conceptual Understanding. Consider the findings reported in
the preceding paper by Sharon Griffin. She demonstrated that pre-
school "readiness" instruction based on the "number line" not only
produced improvement in number knowledge, but additionally in
tasks traditionally thought to be unrelated (e.g., distributive justice).
Griffin concluded that the central dimensional structure can serve as aconceptual framework for curriculum modules. An immediate
question that arises from her findings, however, involves the degree to
which this type of effect will hold up across conceptual structures and
grade levels. In other words, can the notion of central conceptual
structures be used profitably in curriculum design beyond training
math "readiness? My own work addresses this question directly.
Using the social structure discussed in the first paper, I developed a
program of instruction for the same age group and got results similar
to those reported by Griffin. That is, children not only showed
improvement on criteria related measures, but demonstrated strong
transfer to tasks that differed in surface features but shared a common
conceptual underpinning, as well. With this knowledge in hand, our
next goal was to determine if the construct could be applied across a
wide range of grade levels.
7
Curriculum Development 7
To this end, we have analyzed students performance throtighoirt
the elementary and high school years on various social tasks, and have
identified three qualitatively distinct social structures, which map
onto major school division splits. These central social structures are:
(1) ik.ficrlataimenLekuctiKe (pre-school), in which human actions
cohere by virtue of their causal, referential and temporal relations. (2)
An Inte1:4,40CW structme (elementary grades 1-6), in which people's
actions are tied together by the mental states, such as desires and
feelings, that underlie them. (3) An_blesp_mamatrustate
(Junior/senior high school grades 7-12), in which the relations among
an individuars actions and mental states are establiz,hed on the basis of
long standing psychological traits and personal history (Case &
McKeough. 1991: Mclieough, 1987. 1992) (see Figure 1).
When the narrow domain of narrative comprehension and
composition was examined, a similar conceptual picture emerged
(again, see Figure 1). The "story line" developed during the preschool
years follows a simple event time line. Throughout the elementary
school aged years the story line takes on the organization of a folktale,
where the protagonist faces problematic situations that are eventually
overcome. These situations are problematic because of the mental
states they engender in the protagonist, in that they initiate a
problematic state of affairs that must be over come.
At the high school level, the interpretative structure allows the
student to take a meta-position to the intentions underlying actions.
When interpreting fictional events in a short story or novel, students
are able to go beyond the the immediate reascn for the action, to
Curriculum Development 8
analyze the story, and to generalize the outcome to other situations
(Applebee, 1978). When interpreting "family stories" (i.e.. stories
dealing with noteworthy events that have been told repeatedly by
members of the family), average to high average adolescents. aged 12
years, reflect on the meaning the family history holds for them.
whereas later in adolescence (i.e., at 18 years), students extract truths
about life that can be generalized across situations and individuals. In
both cases, the "long shadow of the past" is cast on the present and soaffects how current actions and feelings are understood (Salter, in
preparation).
It should be noted that analyses of this sort typically show
individual differences both within individual children (i.e.. a given
student might perform at level "X" on one task and at level"X1" onanother) and across children (i.e., not all students at a given age level
perform similarly on the various tasks). This pattern of performance
reflects the widely accepted belief that formal learning opportunities
are essential to the development of advanced thinking. For this
reason, we have focused on the need to develop programs of
instruction designed to encourage students to bring their conceptual
knowledge to bear across domains. We suggest that one way to
achieve this latter goal is through the development of interdisciplinaty
units.
(b) Interdisciplinary Units. It seem reasonable that the same
students who take a meta-position to the intentions of fictional
characters can be expected to interpret the motives of historical
9
Cuniculum Development 9
characters and groups. Although Ls yet untested empirically in hieh
school, instruction in the interpretive structure might well be used
across traditional subject boundaries, for example. in English
literature and history.3 For example. students who reach an
understanding of why the parents of Romeo and Juliet forbade the
marriage can be expected to comprehend why the Jesuits thought that
the Huron and Algonquin nations were uncivilized. In both cases,
students take, as the "object* of their cognition, the mental states of
the target groups (i.e., what they thought, felt, and wanted) and
interpret these in light of the personal histories of the actors. In
other words, both tasks require students to consider why the actors'
perspectives developed as they did. By focusing on the components of
the central conceptual structure and the semantic relations among
them, instructors cross traditional discipline boundaries. Thus.
teachers of both history and English literature are able to tap into the
same conceptual understanding and so, develop interdisciplinary units
in which they set similar goals (i.e., the construction and utilization of
the interpretive structure). in a genuinely collaborative effort.
How central conceptual curricula shguld be taught. How might
this notion of a central conceptual understanding be embodied in
instructional practice? To answer this question. I will draw upon IT y
3Traditionally. efforts at transdisciplinary teaching in these two subject areas Wminvolved dealing with a similar time frame and linking the political or economic issuesof the day to the literature's content and thanes (e.g., the phenomenon of migrationduring The Great Depression and Steinbeck's novel The Grapes g. Wrath might bestudied simultaneously and linkages made). A more recent attempt at interdisciplinaryinstruction has taken the form of the liteaacy amass the curriculum" movement. Thegoal here is to teach reading and writing within the context of the subject matterso as toassist the students to apply expert-like literacy strategies that are domain specific.
Curriculum Development 10
work in the narrative domain with pre-school and elementary school
children. Here, the approach suggests a utilization of (a) language (i.e.,
conceptual labels) coupled with a graphc display that forms a
conceptual mnemonic, (b) a flexible methodology, and (c) students'
conceptual frameworks.
(a) Language and graphic mnemonics. Our concept-specific
methodology uses an instructional dialogue between students and
teacher. Specifically, the children communicate the meaning they
take from instructional events to the teacher who, in turn, makes
clear his or her understanding of children's spontaneous conceptual
understanding by labeling the components of the structure. By way of
example, the elements of narrative structure the 6-year-old are
identified concisely by the teacher as "feeling bad or sad". "an idea to
get feeling better", and "feeling happy again." These labels are coupled
with graphic depictions so as to provide the children with a
conceptual mnemonic that assists them in becoming aware of their
current, spontaneous representation (see Figure 2). The conceptual
mnemonics are central to the instruction process as they allow
students to take a meta-position to their knowledge. and in so doing
take as "object" that to which they were previously "subject" (Kegan.
1982).
Language that refers to central concepts is also essential in the
next step in the instruction process. that is. conveying a new set of
semantic relations inherent in the more advanced conceptual
structure. By way of example. the 8-year-old narrative structure has
Curriculum Development 11s
one structural element added to the 6-year-old structure, that is, an
idea that doesn't work (again, see Figure 2). Here, the dialogue is
initiated by the teacher, who identifies the ne x element and shows
how it relates to the components of the previous structure, as it is
displayed in the graphic representation. The conceptual labels, used
in conjunction with a graphic display, help the students apply the
newly acquired structure across situations. This is because they are
specific enough to capture the conceptual essence of the material yet
general enough to be applied across a range of tasks that differ in
surface features but share the same underlying pinning.
(b) Flexible Methodology. Student-teacher interaction is not the only
approach used. In contrast to the rather didactic process described
above. instruction can be initiated through peer teaching. Here again,
dialogues form the basis of the exchange. Students who participate in
"communities of learners" develop an understanding of their
classmates' concepts or "theories" and, in turn, communicate their
own point-of-view to class members. As can be seen, then, in addition
to internally-situated processes. such as exploration and problem
solving, the current approach also taps into socially-situated learning
processes, typically associated with the socio-cultural school of
thought (Brown & Campione, 1984: Bruner. 1987; Vygotsky. 1978:
Wertsch, 1991). Thus, the present approach allows teachers to be
flexible in their use of methodology, including didactic methods as
well as peer-centered learning.
(c) The student's conception. What the two approaches described
above have is common is their focus on the conceptual understanding
12
Curdculum Development 12
of the student. AlthmAgh the peer dialogues results in more open-
ended discuslion than teacher-initiated conceptual change, both
approaches share the notion that discussion of conceptual
representations is central to learning and that, through such
discussions, existing knowledge structures are examined and new
elements are added to them. Thus, both teacher-student dialogues and
the peer dialogues are thought of as a "mutual regulation" process, as
teacher, student, and peer are affected by the representation held by
the other.
When should material be taught? The current approach also allows
teachers to make decisions regarding the timing of instruction on the
basis of students' conceptual understanding. Within the current
model, students are asked to apply a given structure independently
only when that structure is firmly in place. Otherwise, conceptual
support is offered in the form of instructional dialogues between
student and teacher and among fellow students. With a clear picture
of the developmental sequence in hand, teacher are in a good position
to judge (a) if the students have mastery of a given central concept and
(b) what new structural component should be introduced. Thus, in
contrast to the Piagetian-based approach, programs of instruction
based on central conceptual structures are in the hands of teachers.
Conclusion. At the outset of this paper I proposed that curricula
designed to teach central conceptual structures offer a new
conceptualization of curriculum design and delivery. I will conclude
my discussion by comparing the current approach with others that
13
Curriculum Development 13
have influenced practice and highlight its potential utility in
addressing practical curricula-related problems currently facing
teachers.
The present approach clearly represents a move away from the
Piagetian notion of a content-free, single, logical structure. In
advocating that instruction should focus on the elements of the central
conceptual structures and the relations among them, we are
suggesting that the organization of the mind is indeed more domain
specific than Piaget postulated. Thus, curricula are not aimed at
affecting academic performance at a global level, but rather focus on
material that has direct relevance to specific subject matter. At the
same time, however, because the knowledge structures are considered
central to a range of traditional disciplines, the current approach is
aimed forming interdisciplinary linkages. Consequently, it occupies a
middle ground. between the subject-area specificity and global
knowledge structures, where the semantic relations inherent within
the children's central conceptual structures are taught.
Given this intermediate position, curricula based on central
conceptual structures utilize teaching methodologies both from atraditional developmental approach and from a subject-area
orientation. That is, while we retain the view that children construct
increasingly complex conceptual representations, we posit that the
assembly can be assisted by direct concept-specific instruction. Thus,
the current approach can tolerate a range of methodological
approaches such that teaci. ridividual teaching preferences can be
accommodated.
14
Curriculum Development 14
Finally, central conceptual curricula offers a potentially useful
framework for responding to issues that are presently of critical
importance in the field, such as "program continuity" and "assessment
standards." Over the last ten years. data have been massed that dearly
indicate tliat retention has not produced the expected results.
Studies have repeatedly shown that students who are retained fair no
better than matched peers who are promoted (Melvin & Juliebo,
1991). In maction to these findings. "program continuity" or
"continuous progress" has been suggested. Currently, practitioners are
struggling with how to operationalize the construct in a graded
system. The issue is further complicated by a lack of knowledge of
assessment standards. As was demonstrated in the second paper, the
present developmental theory offers a possible framework for judging
students performance in terms of their level of understanding, as it is
demonstrated within a central conceptual domain. Moreover, the
developmental progression, with its hierarchical organization in each
domain provides a potentially useful framework for the notion of
continuous (rather than graded) progress.
In dosing, we see our central conceptual approach as a natural
companion to instructional approaches that are designed to have
children reflect on their own understanding and examine how to go
about acquiring new knowledge (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1983). Like
these approaches, the current framework transcends subject-area
disciplines and aims at intermediate level structures, between
domain-specific and global kn.awledge.
Curriculum Development 15
References
Applebee, A. (1978). The child's concept of stonj. Chicago:University pf Chicago Press.
Serener, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1983). Schooling and the growth of Iintentional cognition: Helping children take charge of their ownminds. In Z. Lamm (Ed.), New trends in education (pp. 73-100).Tel-Aviv: Yachdev United Publishing Co.
Biggs, J. & Collis. K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: TheSOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
Bruner, J. (1987). The transactional self. In J. Bruner & H. Haste(Eds.), Making sense: The child's construction of the world (pp.81-96). New York: MetIvien.
Brown, A.L. & Campione, (LC. (1984). Three faces of transfer:Implications for early competence, individual differences, andinstniction. In M. Lamb, AL. Brown, and B. Rogoff (Eds.), Advancesin developmental psycnology (Vol 3. pp. 143-192). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Case, R. & McKeough. A. (1990). Schooling and the development ofcentral conceptual knowledge structures: An example from thedomain of children's narrative. International Journal of Education,13(8), 835-855.
Halford, G. (1982). The development of thpught. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kegan. R (1982). The evolving selfi Problem and process in humandevelopment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
McKeough A. (1992). The structural foundations of children's narrativeand its development. In R. Case (Ed.), The Mind's Staircase: Stages inthe development of human intelligence.(pp. 171-188) Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
16
Curriculum Development 16
Mc Keough, A. (1987, April). A neo-Plagetian analysis of adolescentsperformance on composing and scientific masoning tasks. Parwrpresented at the American Educational Research Association ArmualMeeting. Washington, DC.
Melvin, J. & Juliebo, M. (1991) To retain or not retain: A critical lookat retention in North American Elementary schools. The CanadianSchool Executive (June) 3-11.
Salter, D. (iti preparation). A developrnental analysis of adolescent'sinterpretation of family stories. M.Sc. thesis. The University ofCalgary, dalgary, Alberta.
Vygotsky, L (1987). Thought and language. (N. Minick, Ed. & Trans.).New York: Plenum Press.
Wertsch, J.V. (1991).The problem of meaning in a socioculturalapproach to mind. In A. McKeough & J. Lupart (Eds.), Toward thepractice of theory-based instruction: Current cognitive theories andtheir educational pmmise (pp. 31-46). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.
1 7
se
SocialStructure
StoryStructure
curriculum Development 17
Rotational Stage Dimensional Stage(2 -4 years) (5 -11 years)
Action Emit Structure kttentional Structure
sequence of physical evens everAs and steam kt physicrdand states (1 doll* and then world we differsertiated bum1 do "8") but related to =Intel states
(I do W & becauseI feel/third( X & "Y")
1st Order event structure ZatentussautucIum(Script) (Simple plot of fotktale)
time Ikle reporting ofevent sequence; action
and teeing are melded
Figure 1 The Central Sodal Structure
episodic organization centeringon a problem ski its resolution;event is problemarre becase ofthe mental state it engendos
Vectorial Stage(12 -18 years)
Interpretive Structure
mental states tre tabledto characWs psychcdogicidmakeup (Ifni/think Nr & NY"
became 1 am a certain weof person)
1+11
plot of short story)
Literary technicyres (e.g.,foreshadowing or flashback)
provkie meta-perspective tochanxters' adons and mentalstates resulting in romance,satire, comedy, or tragedy
Recommended